Talk:Battle of Saragarhi/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Infobox

@Cinderella157: Your edit summaries are getting more misleading than ever. What do you want to discuss especially when you haven't answered my message here? It is a common fact that you can't treat this website to be more reliable than Bloomsbury Publishing.

The Bloomsbury source is also clear that "Fort Gulistan was gallantly defended by the 36th Sikhs for 52 hours before reinforcements arrived". So if the battle was started on 12 September, it ended on 14th September. You can just change the date of the conflict instead of edit warring and removing sourced content, given the fight never exactly stopped after 12 September battle by 21 Sikhs.

Other sources, much better than the website link, that support the reverted edits include:

• The Pathan Revolts in North West India. Sang-e-Meel Publications. 1979. p. 126-133. The officers and men bad now been under arms for 52 hours , and had actually been on their posts for 50 hours without a rest . The enemy who attacked Saragarhi and Fort Cavagoari were the Mamuzais , Ali Khels and Ali Sherzais..
• Peter Quennell. History Today. p. 226. 1897 Victory over the tribesmen on the North - west frontier of British India is still commemorated by Sikh regiments
• Tom Lansford (16 February 2017). Afghanistan at War: From the 18th-Century Durrani Dynasty to the 21st Century. ABC-CLIO. pp. 408–. ISBN 978-1-59884-760-4. The tribesmen subsquently attacked Gulistan through the night of September 12. Their strike was repulsed by heavy fire. A new relief column with cavalry and artillery was able to begin shelling the tribesmen. The column reached Sangar on September 14, prompting the Afridis and Orakzais to withdraw.

The last source also supports 400 deaths, while the first one say 500 deaths. Together with the date, we can change British India casulaties to '25' per these sources and change tribesmen casulaties to 400 - 500 deaths. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

1. The scope of this article is very specifically the last stand battle at Saragarhi, in which all the defenders were ultimately killed. It gives the date as 12 September 1897. It refers briefly to subsequent fighting over the next two days, in which the post was recaptured. This subsequent fighting is not the subject of this article (as written) but there is no separate article for it either.
2. The purpose of an article lead is to summarise the body of the article. It should be supported by the body of the article, which is, in turn verifiable by citation to reliable sources. An infobox is a suppliment to the lead and similar requirements apply to the infobox.
3. Where there are sources which differ in opinion (such as the result of the battle) or which vary in information (such as casualties), this should be discussed in the body of the article with consideration to WP:WEIGHT. This has not occurred.
4. MOS:MIL gives specific guidance on the subject of the result, specifically at WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. Further detailed guidance is given at Template:Infobox military conflict. The guidance deprecates dot-points as done in the subject edit[1] which was deleted by me. This is one reason for deleting the edit.
5. As to where the victory lies? The scope of the article is the last stand defence made by the Sikhs. The scope does not extend to the subsequent battle which is fairly clearly a British Indian victory. Per the guidance, we report the "immediate result" of the conflict which is the subject of the article. It is WP:BLUE that if all the defenders in a particular action are all killed, the attackers are victorious. Such a claim is also supported by citation. If the result is not clear or needs to be qualified, the guidance is clear that "See aftermath" should be used in the result field. The subject edit is contrary to this guidance. Such a claim of a British Indian victory also appears to fall outside the scope of the article and into the subsequent battle.
6. Citations made to 21 Kesaris: The Untold Story of the Battle of Saragarhi are incomplete, lacking identification of the pages cited.
7. The status quo version of the article infobox reports the casualties which most are "commonly reported" (ie in two sources) but is also uses "see aftermath", referring the reader to a fuller discussion and the range of casualty figures that have been reported in other sources and the difficulty in determining the Afghan casualties.
8. The subject edit would report figures from "21 Kesaris" over those of the other two sources. There is therefore a citing inconsistency. There are three sources cited, of which only one verifies the figures given. Furthermore, the figures added are not discussed in the aftermath section, creating an inconsistency with that section in the article's body.
9. Changes may be made IAW the sources indicated in the OP here but only after amendment to the aftermath section, in which the sources are added and discussed. However, context is everything. The figures being reported must be within context. Scholarly sources will explain the rationale for reporting figures and give the sources relied upon. However, where there are significantly different figures and no clear consensus in the sources, it is better to defer to the aftermath section without quoting any figure. I also note the reference to 50 hours of battle (ie over at least 3 days). The article would need to report this (including context) and reconcile any difference in the source. This is a reference to Fort Gulistan, which is related but outside the scope of the battle at Saragarhi, which is the subject of this article. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
10. The edit summary of the subject edit states: Do not restore a personal website to oppose a scholarly source. The Indian Defence Review (the status quo source for the result) is a peer reviewed journal with an online presence (per about us). Unless otherwise determined by community consensus, it would be considered a scholarly source. "21 Kesaris" is credited to Kiran Nirvan which is the pseudonym used by authors Kirandeep Singh and Nirvan Singh.[2]. The former is a scholar in management (ie writing outside their field of scholarship) and the latter a serving soldier. The claim in the edit summary appears to lack credibility.

There are multiple issues with the proposed edit wrt policy and guidelines. If "21 Kesaris" or any of the other sources indicated above are to be relied upon, they must be incorporated and integrated into the body of the article before changes to the infobox can reasonably be considered. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Indian Defence Review is a subsidiary of Lancer, and is good mainly for hearing views and memoirs of Indian military members, but when it comes to comparing them with better quality references as provided above, then your choice should be the latter. As for your strange reliance on their "about us" page, then it is another common fact that everyone claims to be the best source, but it doesn't means that it becomes better. The article by "an ex-Mig-21 fighter pilot," cannot be more reliable than Bloomsbury, given that Bloomsbury Publishing is a scholarly publisher.

WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX does not support your edits. The mention of "victory" is warranted as British India being the victor, and highlighting the reason below that how it won the war is similarly justifiable. See Operation Barbarossa.

Just because you don't have access to sources, it doesn't mean that the source should be discarded or the source must be saying something else. The Pathan revolt in north-west India clearly says "The enemy who attacked Saragarhi and Fort Cavagnari were the Mamuzais, Ali Khels and Ali Sherzais, together with the Afridi hishhar. The enemy lost 500 killed and wounded; but this does not include the slightly wounded who were able to walk away, the number of whom it is impossible to ascertain." The page 129 at 21 Kesaris: The Untold Story of the Battle of Saragarhi verifies the information.

There is no question about a "Status quo", because there is no deadline and Wikipedia is a work of improvement. I can absolutely modify the whole article to reflect these sources but before that you need to stop reverting and allow the edits to stick. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

1. I have never said that sources should be discarded. In fact, the converse appears to be the case. However, one source cannot be simply preferred over another. Due WP:WEIGHT must be given to each. In simple terms, a management academic and a serving officer does not trump "an ex-Mig-21 fighter pilot" in a peer reviewed journal. They have at least, similar standing.
2. WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX gives voice to Template:Infobox military conflict (which I also linked). There are limited terms permitted under the guidance - this does not include dot-points. That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS reasonably falls to WP:DEADLINE - which you have quoted. Per the guidance, the "immediate result" of the action at Saragarhi was clearly an Afghan victory. British India was only victorious in the greater battle which is outside the scope of the article, which is very specifically limited to the engagement at Saragarhi. That there is nuance to the "greater result" (per the guidance) is best represented as "Afghan victory - see aftermath" or "see aftermath" alone. In either case, the aftermath section must reflect such nuance.
3. The enemy who attacked Saragarhi and Fort Cavagnari were the Mamuzais, Ali Khels and Ali Sherzais, together with the Afridi hishhar. The enemy lost 500 killed and wounded; but this does not include the slightly wounded who were able to walk away, the number of whom it is impossible to ascertain. But was this the figure specifically at the Saragarhi post? If it is not, it is out of scope of the article, which is specifically about the engagement at Saragarhi. This is not, however, dissimilar to the existing reporting but it is substantially different from Orakzais and Afridis combined had lost about 400 men with another 600 wounded. - a total of 1,000. Context is everything. I might support a note and citation being added to the existing figures in the infobox to effect of a figure of 500 casualties and wounded (not including walking wounded) [including the source being cited]. However, the context in the source would need to be clarified and the aftermath section must also be edited accordingly prior to such an amendment to the infobox.
4. The relationship (per WP:LEAD) between the body of the article, the lead and the infobox (a supplement to the lead) is "bottom up". The lead and the infobox must be supported by and be consistent with the body of the article. The subject edit is not.
5. The status quo is very specifically that which existed before the edit that has been challenged. This is made clear in guidance on closing RfCs.
6. I will not unreasonably oppose any improvement to the article - it truly does need improvement. However, this needs to be from the bottom up. I will not unreasonably oppose changes to the lead and infobox that reflect the body of the article, the scope of the article and, policy and guidelines.

Cinderella157 (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Fort Cavagnari is an alternative name of Fort Gulistan. Srijanx22 (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

If every single combatant on one side gets killed during the battle, that side loses. That's basic common sense, and the result was referenced. FDW777 (talk) 11:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Futhermore, the quote provided (Fort Gullistan was gallantly defended by the 36th Sikhs for 52 hours before reinforcements arrived) was misleading, even if it did support a claim of "Indian victory" which it didn't. The passage continues It was a battle that tested the might of Sikh soldiers who were motivated enough to avenge the deaths of their 21 brothers who had set high standards for others to follow. With images of the Battle of Saragarhi still fresh in their minds, the Sikh soldiers at Fort Gullistan provided tough resistance and made each bullet count. So the reference is clear, the Fort Gullistan battle was a separate event to the Battle of Saragarhi, and that quote cannot be used to support the claimed result. FDW777 (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777: Your common sense is equivalent to WP:OR. What is your reference? "Indian defence review" is a low-quality source as already discussed right above. "21 Kesaris" (from Bloomsbury) support British India victory by saying: "The attack on the Samana forts had failed and Orakzais and Afridis combined had lost about 400 men with another 600 wounded. Of course, no battle is won without casualties. The 36th Sikhs had also suffered heavy losses". Then there are also other sources that support the same. This is why I blanked 'result' parameter.

This entire battle happened on a rocky outcrop between fort Gulistan and Fort Lockhari, as such your claim that anything that happened in Gullistan is irrelevant to the article is absolutely misleading. This battle concerns attacks on Fort Lockhart, Fort Gulistan and Saragarhi which was occupied by 36th Sikh regiment. Remember that this battle took place at Samana hills, and these forts were attacked in the battle involving the same parties. 36th Sikh regiment was in fact defending the Samana Ridge in this battle, not just Saragarhi. You should go through the sources provided above and see how they describe this conflict as. We have also done almost the same throughout the article but the information in infobox is misleading. Srijanx22 (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no original research involved. If anything, the only original research was when you added a claim of Indian victory using a quote about a totally different battle. The same applies to your other "references".

• The officers and men bad now been under arms for 52 hours , and had actually been on their posts for 50 hours without a rest . The enemy who attacked Saragarhi and Fort Cavagoari were the Mamuzais , Ali Khels and Ali Sherzais. Nothing about an Indian victory.
• 1897 Victory over the tribesmen on the North - west frontier of British India is still commemorated by Sikh regiments. Nothing about an Indian victory in this specific battle
• The tribesmen subsquently attacked Gulistan through the night of September 12. Their strike was repulsed by heavy fire. A new relief column with cavalry and artillery was able to begin shelling the tribesmen. The column reached Sangar on September 14, prompting the Afridis and Orakzais to withdraw. Once again, nothing about an Indian victory in this specific battle.

You've had your DS notification, you can have a trip to AE if you like. FDW777 (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

AE won't solve your content dispute. Correct place would be WP:DR. What about the quote already provided by him to support victory right above? Also see: Peter Quennell. History Today. p. 226. 1897 Victory over the tribesmen on the North - west frontier of British India is still commemorated by Sikh regiments. Obviously this should be enough to support British India victory. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

As above, there is no evidence the quote refers to the battle that is the subject of this article. That is abundantly clear when looking at the snippet view preview on Google Books. AE won't solve any content dispute, but it may well remove editors who edit disruptively from the topic area. FDW777 (talk) 10:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

That's because you are not even reading the sources at all. This source says: "Saragarhi : Sikhs and Pathans , 1897 : Victory over the tribesmen on the North - west frontier of British India is still commemorated by Sikh regiments."

Given your WP:IDHT, let me repeat the quote I already posted once above: "21 Kesaris" (from Bloomsbury) support British India victory by saying: "The attack on the Samana forts had failed and Orakzais and Afridis combined had lost about 400 men with another 600 wounded. Of course, no battle is won without casualties. The 36th Sikhs had also suffered heavy losses".

I am afraid that you are still not getting that there is no "totally different battle", but they are all interrelated with this battle that is commonly referred to as "Battle of Saragarhi" and you are not reading the sources for learning that how they describe this battle. You are editing for a long time enough to understand that I made this edit with the quotation to support the 2nd sentence I added below "British India victory", which is already supported by the quotation I provided.

Obviously these sources should be enough to support British India victory, but to claim that this talks about a "totally different battle" shows your continued difficulty with understanding this conflict. You need to read the sources instead, and see how they describe the battle as, they treat all attacks of Samana ridge as a single battle just like THIS article does, only some parts of infobox avoid though. Srijanx22 (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Except the book doesn't obviously say "Saragarhi : Sikhs and Pathans , 1897 : Victory over the tribesmen on the North - west frontier of British India is still commemorated by Sikh regiments." at all, as snippet view proves here. "1897" is as heading, then the sentence begins Victory over the tribesmen on the North - west frontier of British India is still commemorated by Sikh regiments. As before, there is no evidence that sentence, nor any of the others provided, refer to this specific battle. This article is about a single battle, which the Sikhs lost. FDW777 (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

As you'd know if you read the article or the book you cite, which says With images of the Battle of Saragarhi still fresh in their minds, the Sikh soldiers at Fort Gullistan provided tough resistance and made each bullet count as already stated. Your own reference considers it a distinct battle. FDW777 (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The "Saragarhi Sikhs and Pathans" article was written by James Lunt, a military historian. He treat British Indian army as the victor and provide details of fights at Fort Lockhart, Fort Gulistan and Saragarhi under the heading "Saragarhi Sikhs and Pathans". This is another book (p.19-21) which also talk about all these conflicts under the heading "Saragarhi (1897)".

Same is the case with all other sources provided here. If these battles were distinct then none of these sources would be clubbing them all together. That's why other editors have already agreed to expand the Wikipedia article further since the article already talks about conflicts of Gulistan and Lockhart. Srijanx22 (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Srijanx22, that authors might report on closely related events when writing on a particular event is not surprising. What is interesting is that a search of History Today returns no results for "Battle of Saragarhi". Does Lunt actually use this term? Of the second source given, "Saragarhi (1897)" is a chapter heading covering a period from December 1896 to May 1898. It also mentions some seven forts but does not specifically use the term "Battle of Saragarhi". The primary topic of the article at present is the particular engagement that occurred at Saragarhi on 12 September. Within this scope, it is quite appropriate to touch upon related events (mainly in the prelude and aftermath) but reporting of strength, casualties and result should be particular to the primary subject. The contention is that the primary subject extends more broadly to a series of actions at several locations along the Samana Ridge over several days, both before and after 12 September. In such a case, the article would need to be totally rewritten and there is no point in arguing over piecemeal changes which do not reflect the present scope of the article and are consequently misleading. Furthermore, if the scope of the article is to be changed, a consensus for change needs to be established. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to provide you the version of that chapter by James Lunt, but you can read here. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Scope and primary topic of the article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An RfC is being made to determine the scope and primary topic of the article.

This article currently deals with the engagement at Fort Saragarhi on 12 September 1897 in which 21 Sikh troops fought a last-stand battle against Afghans.

There were six forts around Fort Lockhart on the Samana Ridge (including Fort Saragarhi). They were spread over about 5 miles. They were engaged by Afghans from about 28 August until 14 September [3] (see also discussion above and article).

The current article makes passing comment about other engagements in the vicinity in the "Background" and "Aftermath" sections.

A position presented in preceding discussion is that all of the engagements occurring around this time are part of the "Battle of Saragarhi". Consequently, the article would need to be rewritten to reflect a broadened scope and revised primary topic, which is not just the engagement at Saragarhi.

There are two questions (options):

1. Should the status quo be retained with the present scope and primary topic being the engagement at Saragarhi on 12 September 1897?
2. Should the scope and primary topic of the "Battle of Saragarhi" article be expanded to include other engagements in the Samana Ridge area between about 28 August to 14 September?

Cinderella157 (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Also notified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC at Talk:Battle of Saragarhi#Scope and primary topic of the article?. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment The scope of this article remains the single day's Battle of Saragarhi. Like all articles, it should give a reasonable amount of information relating to the background and aftermath, since the battle did not occur in a vacuum. But the references are clear, the Battle of Saragarhi occurred on 12 September. Later events are not part of the battle. FDW777 (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
• If the article can be reasonably expanded to cover the entire Saragarhi campaign, then sure. Overall, it seem the article in its present form isn't restricted to one day battle. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

शिव साहिल, if the article becomes about the "Saragarhi campaign", can we still call it "Battle of Saragarhi"? What do the sources call the "Battle of Saragarhi"? That is unclear from the previous discussion and is the purpose of the RfC. Of course and as per FDW777, no event occurs in a vacuum. Consequently, any good article (WP or in the real world) will detail the greater context while still retaining a focus on the primary subject. Is the engagement at Saragarhi on 12 September the primary subject of what sources call the "Battle of Saragarhi"? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support 2 Support expanding the article to cover the other engagements. Connected information and logical, and seems for the moment this is the logical place for the information. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Deathlibrarian, of course, we can include other events as context but what is the primary topic of the "Battle of Saragarhi"? Is it the engagement at Saragarhi on 12 September or is it the engagements across the Samana Ridge over a longer period? How do the sources define the "Battle of Saragarhi"? In the lead, do we say: "The Battle of Saragarhi was an engagement at Fort Saragarhi on 12 September ... "? Or do we say: "The Battle of Saragarhi was a series of engagements across the Samana ridge between X and Y ..."?

• Support 2 To cover the details about the battle as a whole as that above confusions can be resolved. SignificantPBD (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support 2 Article has covered enough information until now but needs to be more strict with the scope. The infobox should also say "British India victory" per above sections. Dhy.rjw (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

To be strict wrt the scope, shouldn't it strictly follow the sources wrt what they define as the scope of the title term. What consensus of sources would support the scope being more than the engagement at Ft Saragarhi on 12 September? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: In opening this RfC, I had hoped that the responses given would resolve the question on the basis of reasoned argument and evidence, rather than eliciting unsubstantiated opinion - noting that consensus lies in the strength of argument, which in turn, lies with the former. Any decent article on WP should touch on events that are closely related to the primary topic. The same is true of articles and monographs in the RW. Closely related events; though, are just that. They are not the "primary" topic but are closely related.

Ipso facto, the scope of this article is the "Battle of Saragarhi" - unless sources are "explicitly" defining the scope to be broader (and are not just giving context by reporting closely related events). It is not the role of WP to write history but to report history that has been written. Great care must be taken to ensure the distinction is maintained. Searching for "Battle of Saragarhi", it is clear that many sources generally satisfying WP:RS explicitly refer to the "Battle of Saragarhi" as the engagement at Ft Saragarhi on 12 September. However, while (almost) none of these are "good quality scholarly sources" upon which we should base such a decision, it does strongly indicate that scope commonly applied is the "engagement at Ft Saragarhi on 12 September". Unfortunately, the sources that we should be relying upon are not readily accessible. While some here have claimed that sources support a broader interpretation of the primary topic, where I have been able to view sources presented, they have not explicitly supported such a claim. I had hoped that this RfC might have drawn comments from those with fuller access to more sources on the subject so that an informed decision of a consensus in the sources could be made as to the scope of the primary topic. This has not been the case. Of the sources given in the discussion preceding this RfC, only one appears to specifically refer to the "Battle of Saragarhi" and the explicit context is "the engagement at Ft Saragarhi on 12 September".[4]

Unless a body of evidence is subsequently presented, WP:P&G dictates that the primary topic of this article must remain the "engagement at Ft Saragarhi on 12 September". However, this does not preclude improving the article by adding context and expanding upon closely related events - provided it does not stray into misrepresenting the outcomes of these closely related events as the outcome of the primary topic. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

It is worth noting that this article is listed as being part of Tirah Campaign. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support 1-qualified (Summoned by bot) per FDW777 & Cinderella157, obviously the primary topic of the battle is errrrr.... the battle, which appears to be narrowly defined to one day. Having said that, equally obviously the background and aftermath need to be covered, and these appear to be the REAL area of disagreement above and, crudely, who won - and how to render this in the infobox. It isn't necessarily ESSENTIAL that a simple "Victor" be posted in the infobox. It can be left empty or a more nuanced account be posted there. Pincrete (talk) 12:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support 1. I came here from WP:CR to close this discussion, but so many editors have made suggestions without sources to back them up and flagrantly disregarding guidelines that I feel I just have to comment to balance this up. The relevant guideline is WP:Article titles within which WP:CRITERIA says The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize and WP:PRECISION says Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article.... All the sources I have looked at use the name "Battle of Saragarhi" in the narrow sense of the failed Sikh defence of this outpost: gbooks [5][6][7], web [8][9][10][11][12][13] scholar [14][15][16]. I have no objection to the creation of a wider-scope article, but it needs to be under a different title such as 1897 attacks on the Samana Ridge forts. SpinningSpark 11:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Spinningspark: These news sources that you mentioned,[17][18] and the books you mentioned,[19][20][21] provide enough coverage to the events of Fort Lockhart and Fort Gulistan/Cavagnari while describing the battle at Saragarhi. It means that it would be impossible to detail about Saragarhi battle without the details of battles involving all these forts. "Defence of the Samana forts" is another term that has been used for describing this overall battle.[22][23][24][25] Since Cinderalla has suggested the possibility of renaming the article, I would suggest moving this article to Battle of Samana Ridge. What do you think of that? Srijanx22 (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Srijanx22, I don't think that I have said as much (ie to move the article) and I don't think that would be the appropriate solution. There is sufficient coverage (and notability) for the Battle of Saragarhi to warrant its own article. However, a stand alone article for the "defense of Samana Ridge" might be possible but only if there is sufficient material to flesh out such an article. What such an article would be called would depend on what the sources call it. At present, the Battle of Saragarhi is listed as part of the Tirah Campaign. The "defense of Samana Ridge" could also be part of the Tirah Campaign. The Battle of Saragarhi article can also address the overall battle as "context" but without misrepresenting the two (ie the Saragarhi is part of Samana Ridge and should be represented as such). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, you don't just want to rename the article, you want to repurpose it to a broader scope. This is generally frowned on in Wikipedia, although I have occassionally suggested repurposing when the topic is not notable and a broader topic is. But in this case, the battle of Saragarhi is highly notable, several books have been written on this one battle. It should therefore have its own article. A broader article needs to be an entirely new page. Your suggestion is a bit like demanding that the Battle of Rorke's Drift be renamed to Anglo-Zulu War or Battle of the Alamo be renamed to Texas Revolution. SpinningSpark 14:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

The naming of the event "Battle of Saragarhi" appears to be a a relatively recent occurance.[26] The last-stand at Saragarhi is reasonably topical at the moment because of the film Kesari (2019 film), with the battle being the subject. A Google search reflects this. There are many hits for news and television which, in a substantial proportion of cases, explicitly refer to the Battle of Saragarhi being the engagement at Saragarhi on 12 September 1897. This certainly indicates that the "Battle of Saragarhi" commonly refers specifically to the engagement at Saragarhi. Some monographs have been cited where they deal with the engagement at Saragarhi within the context of the fuller events that were occurring at that time. This is to be expected. What is not clear from the snippets that have been quoted is whether they are explicitly referring to the fuller events as the "Battle of Saragarhi". This is what is substantially being claimed. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Haven't you already agreed with me when it comes expanding the article further? Srijanx22 has also acknowledged it. I see clear agreement of 3/4 editors agreeing with that. As for the rest, I would recommend reading the version before that movie; it is not that different than the present version, only the infobox slightly differed. I think it would be better to allow the re-write and see how it goes. According to my imagination, such newer version  won't differ a lot with this one or the one before 2019. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I have said I will not unreasonably oppose any improvement to the article ... I am not. However, further discussion (and evidence) has raised rather than resolved a significant question as to the scope of the term "Battle of Saragarhi" as would be explicitly defined and referred to in a consensus of sources. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with waiting for the outcome of the RfC before making any major edits to the article. We can of course leave the version as is until RfC is over. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nationalist fantasising strikes again

Which refencences claim this specific battle, in other words the one where all 21 Indian soldiers died in a last stand, was an Indian victory? FDW777 (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Can you keep the result blank until there is actual 'consensus'? Only you are supporting 'Afghan victory', backed only by an unreliable source compared to "British India victory" which is backed by multiple scholarly sources. It is said that re-enforcement was brought by British Indian army and Afghans were thrown out, that's how it was a British Indian victory. Ratnahastin ^tålk 09:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

So no references then? I notice you don't object to to other information specific to this particular battle in the infobox, only the unquestionable result. FDW777 (talk)

There are references and one will know after reading the discussion in the above sections which is pretty conclusive. I am not editing the article anything more than reverting because it is still going through an RfC above. Ratnahastin ^tålk 12:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Most sources say it is a British victory solely because they recaptured the city, the battle was a phyrric Afghan battle initally. Noorullah21 (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This page only recurs the BATTLE OF SARAGHARI, not after its events, that is included in the AFTERMATH section, with the initial battle being an Afghan victory. Noorullah21 (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This page only recurs the BATTLE OF SARAGHARI, not after its events, that is included in the AFTERMATH section, with the initial battle being an Afghan victory.

There is no reason to keep it blank, and nor is the battle a British victory, the re-capture is, however not the Initial battle itself, you can put that in one of the points though. Noorullah21 (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

So when challenged to actually produce the references, Ratnahastin refuses. Just like in the Rfc above when people are asked to provide references that confirm the scope of the battle is wider than the article at present, they also fail to do so.

It is claimed everyone disagreed with me in the Rfc, this is false. Every single person that replied confirmed that the current article's scope refers to a single day's events on 12 September 1897. I suggest reading the Rfc questions.

1. Should the status quo be retained with the present scope and primary topic being the engagement at Saragarhi on 12 September 1897?
2. Should the scope and primary topic of the "Battle of Saragarhi" article be expanded to include other engagements in the Samana Ridge area between about 28 August to 14 September?

Anyone that even answered "yes" to question #2 admits, by default, that the current scope of the article is the engagement at Saragarhi on 12 September 1897. I repeat again that anyone who suggested the scope be expanded failed to provide references on request.

The infobox says this battle occurred on 12 September 1897. It does not give a wider date range It gives the strength of the Indian side as 21 men, this can only refer to the events of 12 September. The lead includes the claim that it's viewed by some historians as the greatest last stand battle in history by the BBC, this article only refers to the 12 September 1897 engagement, so there is no problem including material that fawns over the losers of the battle. Yet for some reason any material that says who lost this battle is excluded. You cannot have it both ways. FDW777 (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I see we're now misrepresnting discussions to claim Indian Defence Review has been deemed unreliable at WP:RSN. It's been mentioned (not discussed) twice at that noticeboard. At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 304 it gets mentioned by a single person about newspapers in general (which is a strange comment, since it isn't a newspaper). At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 342 it gets mentioned slightly more often, but nothing about it being unreliable. I note it's not deemed unreliable elsewhere in the article, such as at Battle of Saragarhi#Comparisons with Thermopylae where it's being used to reference fawning over India.

So to sum up, there has been no consensus at any discussion at WP:RSN that Indian Defence Review is unreliable. But just to be sure, I added another reference. Or are the BBC unreliable as well now? FDW777 (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Indiandefencereview is not reliable site and it has been discussed in WP:RSN archives. Please search before readding.

I see you couldn't be bothered to even read the first paragraph of my post then? FDW777 (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Also not sure what the second reference is suppose to show. Do not see any such statement to back the claim) you said in your edit summary. Reference says The 21 Sikhs had made a valiant last stand, and the enemy had paid a high price for their victory, with around 180 dead. Would you like to reconsider? FDW777 (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Also indiandefencereview (or with an added .com) does not appear to have been discussed at RSN, and there is no link to it in any archive. So rather than make vague "search the archives" type comments, you'll have to provide actual evidence. And even if it has been discussed (which it doesn't appear to have been), I believe any claimed unreliability would be due to the fact India and Pakistan are known to make false claims about the several conflicts between them. However, this is being used for a statement that India lost a battle. A statement that isn't even controversial, given all the Indians died and the attackers took over the outpost... FDW777 (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

That is misrepresentation of the discussion. Indiandefencereview.com is just a website and not an academic publisher, and another website that you added does not meet the criteria of military history either. Even Indiandefencereview source is clear that Sikhs fought for 52 hours, until reinforcements were brought. Can you find anything better than a self-contradictory source? Historyextra is just a website and the article is written by a " journalist and serves as an Army reserve officer", not an academic. If you are really going to use websites for claiming 'victory' then I have much better sources than these to claim a victory for British India such as Scroll, History Today, and others. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

That's not a mispresentation of the discussion at all, it's saying exactly what happened. Indiandefencereview.com is just a website is either ignorant or dishonest, please pick one. It's the website of a published journal. Historyextra is published by the BBC, are you saying the BBC are not reliable? Why aren't you removing the fawning over India referenced elsewhere in the article by the BBC then? FDW777 (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Also we've been over History Today in the section above, it doesn't say what you think it does. I also like how you dismiss a published journal and the BBC, yet claim Scroll.in are in any way reliable for this. No credible references are prepared to state that a battle in which 21/22 defenders won a battle where they were completely wiped out and the enemy captured their outpost. It is absurd to even suggest they won. FDW777 (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Even Indiandefencereview source is clear that Sikhs fought for 52 hours, until reinforcements were brought is more misrepresentation. The only mention of 52 in the entire article is in the phrase 5200 metres, neither does it contain the word "fifty" and the multiple uses of the word "hour" contain nothing similar either. FDW777 (talk) 07:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It says "The Sikhs had fought long enough to allow the British to rush reinforcements, who drove away the droves of Afghans essaying to capture Fort Gulistan." Thus confirms the narrative that backs British India victory. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Indian Defence Review is not an academic journal and is treated as just a mouthpiece of Indian army. Just because it supports your POV, doesn't mean it becomes reliable overnight. Ratnahastin is not dismissing BBC and upholding Scroll. He is just showing you that more 'websites' can be discovered that say British India won this one. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Haven't we already been through this? Repeating the same weak source to dispute information from scholarly sources is not going to fly. See the section above where multiple scholarly sources were provided to confirm British India victory. @El C: You had protected the page last time over the edit war that is being largely carried out by the same user FDW777 once again. Can you take a look into this and construct these users not to edit war against consensus or develop one before making the change? Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

information from scholarly sources? Eh? You'll have to explain how quotes like The officers and men bad now been under arms for 52 hours , and had actually been on their posts for 50 hours without a rest . The enemy who attacked Saragarhi and Fort Cavagoari were the Mamuzais , Ali Khels and Ali Sherzais.. in any way support a claim of Indian victory? See refutations of your other claimed references here. The only thing that needs looking into is the stonewalling and misrepresenation of referencs and discussions by those who seek to exclude the undisputed verifiable result, yet have no object to including fawning over India from the same references. FDW777 (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, the history of the article needs to be inspected. Afghan victory was in the infobox until this edit made on 3 July, updating the result with a quote from a book saying Fort Gullistan was gallantly defended by the 36th Sikhs for 52 hours before reinforcements arrived. The defence of Fort Gullistan is not the subject of this article, the article makes clear that this battle was over an outpost between Fort Gulistan and Fort Lockhart. FDW777 (talk) 08:56, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You have missed the message in the above sections that "The "Saragarhi Sikhs and Pathans" article was written by James Lunt, a military historian. He treat British Indian army as the victor". There is no other equally or more reliable source claiming otherwise.

What exactly matters is that you were mainly edit warring, and the page was protected by El C. The RfC was initiated to talk about the scope since the scholarly sources make it clear that British India won the battle and you are misrepresenting the sources by reducing the scope of the subject all at your own (see WP:OR). When sources and this article are clear about the scope that it concern more than just a single fort. Now without gaining the consensus prior hand you are desperately inserting 'Afghan victory' by depending on non-scholarly websites and falsely claiming that others are including Indian victory in the infobox. The article makes it clear that events related to Fort Gulistan and Fort Lockhart are relevant to the subject, why the infobox should ignore it?

Stick to RfC where there is enough support for expanding the scope. Just don't resort to edit warring to re-add reject results by depending on inferior sources. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Abhishek0831996, you have used the tq or quote template to quote a passage that does not otherwise exist: ... He treat British Indian army as the victor ... The tq template should only be used for making a direct quote, otherwise this could be seen as a deliberate misrepresentation. The link given above to the History Today article by Lunt is only a preview. If you or any other could make it available to me, it would be appreciated. I could otherwise ask for a quote of sufficient length to give context and show that he is specifically referring to the battle of Saragarhi as a British Indian victory. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Pretty obvious since Lunt is talking about the "victory" of "Saragarhi" that is celebrated by Sikhs, it can be a no different battle but this Saragarhi battle. Srijanx22 (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Lunt is talking about the wider conflict, rather obviously when the article is read and in full and as pointed out it's only in the realms of nationalist fantasising that one side can win a battle where they are completely wiped out and the other side take over the outpost. There is no credible dispute about the winner of the battle currently covered by this article. FDW777 (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

You can convince yourself all you want, but Lunt is actually talking about this battle as wholly confirmed by by the source and given he is talking about the "victory" celebrated by Sikhs and making it clear that "since when what happened at Saragarhi", it can be a no different battle but this Saragarhi battle. Afghan tribesmen never got the opportunity to conquer the fort, and before they could conquer they were already banished by additional forces. That's how they are not victorious. I am sure that academics confirming British victory are not some "nationalist fantasising", but the actual WP:RS. Srijanx22 (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

As noted before, the link given is to a "teaser", consisting of the title and the first couple of paragraphs. The title is: Victory over the tribesmen on the North-west frontier of British India, writes James Lunt, is still commemorated by Sikh regiments. The third parra then commences: The history of the British campaigns on the Frontier tells as much of tragedy as of triumph, and one of the greatest tragedies occurred at the little-known fort of Saragarhi .... Assertion that Lunt is calling the events of 12 September a victory is made on incomplete evidence. Without the fuller context that I asked for, it is easily a misrepresentation. The argument being made on the incomplete material, that Lunt is calling the Battle of Saragarhi a Sikh victory is a conflation that rises to WP:OR. The Afghans did overrun the fort on 12 September. The Battle of Saragarhi starts and ends on that day. That the Afghans were subsequently defeated is not in question. However, the subsequent defeat of the Afghans was not part of the Battle of Saragarhi - even though it occurred at the same place and a day later. Trying to call the battle a British India victory is in the same vein as calling the evacuation of Dunkirk a British victory or the evacuation of ANZAC Cove an Australian victory. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

You can see the preview to the full article on the link I already provided here. Srijanx22 (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Srijanx22, I have read the indirect link to Lunt's article. It is a highly editorialised version of events. It makes statements that verge on fiction or beg credibility for want of verifiability: Soon the long knives of the tribesmen had loosened the mortar between two great blocks of stone. Inserting a crowbar, they soon succeeded in levering away sufficient blocks to make a narrow opening into one of the lower rooms of the fort. How does Lunt know that they just happened to be riding around carrying crow-bars? More importantly, an assertion that Lunt is claiming the battle at Ft Saragarhi on 12 September is without credible basis. The word "victory" is only mentioned in the title. I could not rest my case for calling this a British India victory on such an article. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

As before, the actual status quo was before this change. FDW777 (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

To demonstrate this beyond reasonable doubt, the 6 February 2020 version (the first one after a mass of revision deletions) contains "Afghan victory" in the infobox. That's the status quo, with the caveat of the claim of a wider British victory being deprecated per WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX and Template:Infobox military conflict. FDW777 (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I randomly found a August 2020 version which said "Strategic Indian victory", and a June 2020 version which said "Afghan tactical victory, British India strategic victory". Clearly, the result was never stable, except the month after full protection was made. Srijanx22 (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Cinderella157: As you know the major dispute is about the infobox. Like Ratnahastin, Abhishek0831996 and Pincrete above, are you also fine with leaving the "result" parameter blank? Several sources (Lunt, 21 Kesaris, Scroll, etc.) have been already cited to support a "British India victory". There is also a book "The Savage border" which talks about "defence of Saragarhi" in detail, calling it "first victorious battle of the Tirah campaign" [27]. Saying the battle was an "Afghan victory" clearly misrepresents the reflection of overall conclusions made by more reliable sources on this subject. I don't see if you have reinstated any result since it was removed here, but I would like to confirm your position so that we can actually reach a consensus over that part of the infobox. Battle of Saragarhi#Aftermath can nevertheless provide the details about the 'victor' if needed. But it is clear that most sources make no mention that who won or who was defeated because it is not even important for this battle. Srijanx22 (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Srijanx22 In this post on the scope of the article, you appear to be acknowledging the distinction between the battle at Saragarhi on 12 September and the greater battle over a longer period in defence of the Samana Ridge. I have been content to have the matter settled by due process. Please do not construe my actions (or lack of action) to be otherwise. See WP:SILENCE. In this post you have referred to results that use "tactical victory" and "strategic victory". Such terms are contrary to MOS:MIL and are therefore immaterial. MOS:MIL also refers to the immediacy of the result. The result could be left blank or a "see aftermath" option used if it were appropriate. However, the preponderance of sources narrowly construe the Battle of Saragarhi to the 12 September at Fort Saragarhi (as opposed to the broader battle that is the defence of Samana Ridge). When the sources are considered within the narrow scope of the article, there appears to be no doubt as to the outcome of the battle. WP is not in the habit of concealing that which is simply unpalatable to some. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: I only said that this article can be re-titled because the article already covers details about Fort Lockhart and Fort Gulistan. Only infobox is being alienated from the overall picture. I have already proven right above on this reply, that the sources that discuss the Battle of Saragarhi also discuss the events before and after this battle, related to Fort Lockhart and Gulistan. It is also clear that James Lunt, The Savage Border, Scroll.in echo that what happened in "Saragarhi" to be a British Indian victory. Why do these sources need to be ignored? If scholarly sources are valued, then it should already say "British India victory" and if that is not possible then I am fine with leaving result blank or "see aftermath". Srijanx22 (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Srijanx22, by retitling the article, you would be changing the scope of the article - to the defense of Samana Ridge. You have been given good reason by myself and Spinningspark why this is not reasonable. The result of the "defense of Samana Ridge" is not the question here. The question is the result of the "Battle of Saragarhi". I could not call Scroll.in and the Lunt article scholarly sources. They are journalistic in style. As to "The Savage Border", I suggest that context will reveal that it is not making such a claim for the battle at Saragarhi on 12 September. Again, just because an article refers to other events as context, does not make such context part of the primary topic. There is no sound evidence of sources to assert that the "Battle of Saragarhi" was other than an Afghan victory. Continued arguments to the contrary are (IMO) rising to the point of being tendentious. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The Savage Border. It is extremely unclear as to what is being referred to by the sentence The first victorious battle of the Tirah campaign ended on a hiccup. The paragraph it is in is taking about the battle for the Dargai heights, this appears to match details in the Tirah campaign article which says they were captured but abandoned due to lack of supplies (the article says water, the book says food and ammo). Confusingly the book dates this to 20 August when it appears 20 October is correct. The passage doesn't appear to tbe talking about the battle of Saragarhi but the capture of the Dargai heights being the first victory. It's certainly not clear either way as to which battle is referred to as the victory. FDW777 (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

So we're now claiming the version that resulted from this edit was the consensus version are we? I know what I call changing the result to the exact opposite of what the reference says, it's called vandalism. FDW777 (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

We are not. Srijanx22 (talk) 10:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

What are you claiming then? You said above I randomly found a August 2020 version which said "Strategic Indian victory" and followed this up with Clearly, the result was never stable. The result has been stable until it was attacked recently, except for the vandalised version you mentioned. FDW777 (talk) 10:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I do believe that the close of the RfC settles this matter. The scope and primary subject of the article is the last stand engagement at Ft Saragarhi on 12 September. Therefore, the immediate result narrowly constrained to the primary subject of the article is an "Afghan victory". Cinderella157 (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Inflated and poorly sourced claims and analogies

I was summoned here for the RfC, but just to assess matters I've had a quick look at the article and sources.

The lead says "in what is considered by some military historians as the greatest last stand in history". The source, which is an account of a polo match, and therefore fairly useless as a source for history anyway, actually says: "is considered by some military historians as one of history's great last-stands'. Who are these historians? Why is a passing comment from a sports-writer in the lead AT ALL? Why is the claim not expanded in the body of the article? Why has "one of the" become "the'?

Later, we have a whole section on comparison to Thermopylae, it begins with "The battle has frequently been compared", actually the source merely illustrates ONE comparison and since the text relates very little about either similarities or differences between the two battles, the text is largely pointless except as an attempt to inflate the importance of Saragarhi - which many seem to think has been unfairly forgotten, but which we aren't here to remedy. Every important battle in history has probably been compared to every other battle at some time. Unless the comparison is reasonably frequently made and/or leads to some significant conclusion about THIS battle, the text is pointless and not reliably sourced for the actual claims made.

On a more detailed matter, the lead speaks of "chose to fight to the death" rather than the source, which speaks of "rejected calls to surrender". In practice the two are virtually the same, but the latter is both more factual and more neutral. Pincrete (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, a sports' article is hardly an authoritative source in this context and the unattributed "some historians" is just WP:WEASELy. This was not one of history's greatest last stands. There have been numerous such incidents in military history. The soldiers undoubtedly were brave, but this action was small scale and had practically no influence on subsequent events. I've removed the source and its claims from the article lead. I've removed entirely the section comparing to Thermopylae. The cited source does indeed describe both these actions, but the essential premise of the article is that Rezang La was an extraordinary action compared to other last stands. There is no comparison between Thermopylae and Saragarhi as such. SpinningSpark 18:02, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2021

Change Jat Sikhs to Sikhs Baljeet Bhasin (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done Your request contradicts the cited source. SpinningSpark 19:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Pashto References

Can you use references in Pashto language written by acclaimed historians? I believe Wikipedia considers it reliable as long as the quote from the original text is translated by editors. I have seen numerous pages where the words are in arabic language and then translated in english as well. What is your say on it? Naomista (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

And what exactly might this reference say? FDW777 (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

That it was a Great Afghan victory and not Pyrrhic as per the citations. While 10,000 were at the Saragarhi, there were remaining 12000 who attacked the relief party from Fort Lockhart and Gulistan at the same time. It has been mentioned that in addition to 21 soldiers from Saragarhi, 4000 additional British Soldiers were killed as well. Its clearly mentioned that it was the greatest Afghan victory in clear words in Pashto language. (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

We don't need to use words like "Great" in the infobox, and 10,000 emerging victorious against 21 is hardly a major achievement really is it? FDW777 (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Complete denial

"Neither sources support the "Afghan Victory" statement".

The second reference says "The 21 Sikhs had made a valiant last stand, and the enemy had paid a high price for their victory, with around 180 dead". FDW777 (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

What is the point here? The reference doesn't support the statement "Afghan Victory". Canon8 (talk) 10:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting the phrase "The 21 Sikhs had made a valiant last stand, and the enemy had paid a high price for their victory, with around 180 dead" does not support "Afghan victory"? FDW777 (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

What part did you have trouble understanding? The Battle was part of whole Tirah Campaign which was won by British. Also how does that one statement that you keep referencing to again and again supports the Afghan Victory? It clearly doesn't. Canon8 (talk) 10:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:Battle of Saragarhi#Scope and primary topic of the article?, you are wrong. FDW777 (talk) 10:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Also I have amended the URL to the archived version of the Indian Defence Review article, which says " In sum, Saragarhi turned out to be a pyrrhic victory for the Afghans". And "pyrrhic" isn't included in the infobox, see WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. FDW777 (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Indian defence review? That is not even a reliable reference when it comes to past battles. You need to take these references on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard before considering them reliable. Pretty sure these references will be dismissed. Canon8 (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

If you'd like to try and argue a published journal and the BBC are not reliable go right ahead, per WP:RSP the BBC are already reliable. Per the tedious discussions above, there isn't even any dispute about the result of this battle. The Afghans won. FDW777 (talk) 11:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Why are you changing the topic on the references that you originally referred to and pointing to BBC? Question is about IndianDefenceReview that you were referring to. So please stick to that discussion and I would be interested to see the result of whether its a reliable source or not. Per WP:RSP it isn't. There is no Afghan Victory statement nor does the statement provide any logic whether it was. Canon8 (talk) 11:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not changing any topic. There are two references, a published journal and the BBC. That you even deny the meaning of clear and unambiguous sentences make me think we have a competence problem here .FDW777 (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Indian Defence Review. At some point recently (since I only noticed it when struggling to find text referencing Afghan victory I knew was in there last time I looked), the sentence In sum, Saragarhi turned out to be a pyrrhic victory for the Afghans has been removed from the current article (obviously it still appears in the archived version). This changes nothing, since the result isn't in dispute. FDW777 (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It was still there in the latest archive on 28 April (before this dispute began). That looks highly fishy to me, especially as the date hasn't been updated. SpinningSpark 13:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The author of the article, MP Anil Kumar, died in 2014. So he certainly hasn't amended his article. There's also Indian broadsheet newspaper The Pioneer who say And what might seem strange to some is that the battle that is celebrated, ended in defeat and the deaths of every man who fought it. But if there is such a thing as a glorious defeat, the battle of Saragarhi is it. And obviously to anyone suggesting that "glorious defeat" isn't referring to the Sikhs, it wouldn't be strange that Sikhs celebrated the Afghan's "glorious defeat". FDW777 (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

As a footnote to the "highly fishy", the text in question ia back in the live version of the Indian Defence Review article. FDW777 (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Considering that such lines about victory are not on the latest version of IndianDefenceReview site, there is no reason to use the archived version as it loses credibility. Canon8 (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Or, more approriately, we should accurately reflect what the original author (and two other references) say about the battle, not bend to the current whitewashing campaign. I honestly don't even see why there's a problem here. As the Pioneer point out it's rememebered as a glorious defeat where 21 men fought against 10,000+ and refused to surrender. Yet for some reason people think pointing that out is in some way negative, I'm baffled. FDW777 (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, Canon8 has been blocked as a checkuser confirmed sockpuppet. FDW777 (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2023

The words "whom were all jat sikh" is not true. Sikhs do not have a caste system at all Bains131313 (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lemonaka (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Name of 21 sikhs

what is the name of 21 sikhs in war 117.202.210.136 (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Relation of movie sons of sardaar to this battle

Sons of sardaar movie has no relation to this battle. It should be removed from this wiki page. 2607:9880:3368:C1:6FFD:3B0:2C07:DDBD (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Tidied up the popular culture section. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)